A powerful New York politician claims she was just speaking as a private citizen when she tried to run Chick-fil-A out of town, but she used her official letterhead and even invoked her position as City Council speaker to apply pressure on the embattled chicken chain.

New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who has mayoral aspirations, sent a letter to New York University president John Sexton on Saturday asking the school to immediately end their contract with the fast food restaurant. The Atlanta-based company's sole New York City outlet is in the school's food court.

"I write as the Speaker of the NYC Council, and on behalf of my family. NYC is a place where we celebrate diversity. We do not believe in denigrating others. We revel in the diversity of all our citizens and their families,” the letter begins.

"Let me be clear ‐‐ I do not want establishments in my city that hold such discriminatory views," Quinn, an open lesbian who recently married her longtime partner, also wrote in the letter. "We are a city that believes our diversity is our greatest strength and we will fight anything and anyone that runs counter to that."

'If we allow something like this, then the next letter might be concerning someone’s view on abortion.'- NYC Council member Peter Vallone

“As such I urge you to sever your relationship with the Chick‐fil‐A establishment that exists on your campus,” the speaker added.

The letter has drawn the ire from others on the council.

“She can write to someone as a council member, but if she states that she is writing as the Speaker it can only be on behalf of the entire council. She has to have the majority vote of the council, and I don’t recall voting on this matter,” City Councilman Peter Vallone (D-Queens) told FoxNews.com. “A stance on gay marriage is in no way a forum to prevent someone form running a business in a community.

“If we allow something like this, then the next letter might be concerning someone’s view on abortion.”

A spokesperson for Quinn told FoxNews.com in a written statement that, while officials in other cities have said they would block Chick-fil-A through land-use means, Quinn was just expressing her own views.

“Christine Quinn was simply voicing her own opinion; she fully understands that Mr. Cathy has the right to say and donate to anything he wants. But she has the right to use her voice just as much as he does,” Quinn’s spokesperson added.

The speaker elaborated on her stance and seemingly backpedaled while speaking with reporters at an event in midtown Manhattan on Tuesday.

“I support businesses that are open and inclusive -- that reflect the viewpoint of New York City, the most in diverse city in the world. That said, businesses that follow our laws have a right to open here,” said Quinn during the announcement of the city starting a career center for veterans. “We are asking Mr. Cathy to reconsider, open up his mind and really overcome his homophobia and stop investing his money in efforts to limit the rights of LGBT Americans. I’m raising my voice -- which can be loud at times -- but I’m never going to misuse this office in any way at all.”

Whether the school will take Quinn's advice remains to be seen. In 2011, NYU’s Student Senators Council considered a resolution to remove Chick-fil-A from campus but ultimately ruled that, “to ban any entity from campus for ideological reasons is, in most every case, to limit freedom of expression,” and did not seek a resolution from the full University Senate.

But John Beckman, a spokesman for NYU, tells FoxNews.com in a written statement that given the recent news, the matter will be revisited by school officials.

“The University Administration will ask the University Senate to take up the issue of Chick-fil-A’s status on campus again when it reconvenes this fall to make a recommendation on how to proceed,” he said.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said last week that he would not follow the lead of his counterparts in Chicago, San Francisco and Boston, who all said Chick-fil-A was not welcome in their cities. Bloomberg said it was “inappropriate” for any government to decide if a business can or cannot operate in a city because of someone's political views.

Quinn also had posted a petition on Change.org last week that demands Cathy apologize for his remarks. Another petition on the website was created by an NYU student and gathered 15,000 signatures of students also demanding that the chicken chain be removed from the campus.

Thankfully there are those out there who stand up to these leftist tyrants who hate free speech for that not to happen.

Liberal = Intolerant, bigoted, close minded, brown shirts

who said Cathy isn't free to speak or spend his money any way he wants

he is free to say anything he wants and anyone who doesn't like it is free to speak out against him or protest his company etc...

I don't think cities should try banning them and I'm don't even think they can legaly do so (hasn't this gone to the courts in case where cities tried to ban adult bookstores and other types of business like that)

who said Cathy isn't free to speak or spend his money any way he wants

he is free to say anything he wants and anyone who doesn't like it is free to speak out against him or protest his company etc...

I don't think cities should try banning them and I'm don't even think they can legaly do so (hasn't this gone to the courts in case where cities tried to ban adult bookstores and other types of business like that)

you're the lawyer so I assume you know this stuff

Correct - but what set this off was Rhambo and Menino more than anything else trying to ban the business within city limits.

......................Psychologists Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammers, based at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, surveyed a roughly representative sample of academics and scholars in social psychology and found that “In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists admit that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues.”

This finding surprised the researchers. The survey questions “were so blatant that I thought we’d get a much lower rate of agreement,” Mr. Inbar said. “Usually you have to be pretty tricky to get people to say they’d discriminate against minorities.”

One question, according to the researchers, “asked whether, in choosing between two equally qualified job candidates for one job opening, they would be inclined to vote for the more liberal candidate (i.e., over the conservative).”

More than a third of the respondents said they would discriminate against the conservative candidate. One respondent wrote in that if department members “could figure out who was a conservative, they would be sure not to hire them.”

Mr. Inbar, who volunteered for the Obama campaign in 2008, cautions that the finding reflects only what respondents said they would do — not necessarily what they actually would do in real life......................

....Harvey Mansfield, a conservative professor of government at Harvard University, argues that the anti-conservative bias is real and pronounced. He says conservatism is “just not a respectable position to hold” in the academy, where Republicans are caricatured as Fox News enthusiasts who listen to Rush Limbaugh.

Beyond that, conservatives represent a distinct minority on college and university campuses. A 2007 report by sociologists Neil Gross and Solon Simmons found that 80 percent of psychology professors at elite and non-elite universities are Democrats.....

The White House has asked YouTube to review the online video that has been cited as the spark for demonstrations raging across the Middle East and North Africa.

The Obama administration is not explicitly asking YouTube to remove the film, but to check if it meets their standards.

"The White House asked YouTube to review the video to see if it was in compliance with their terms of use," Press Secretary Jay Carney said.

The trailer for "Innocence of Muslims" has been used as a rallying cry by those attacking U.S. embassies and consulates around the world. Several top lawmakers, though, have questioned whether the film -- in the case of the deadly attack on the consulate in Libya -- was used as a cover to execute a pre-planned attack on American officials.

Critics have accused the Obama administration of putting too much focus on the film itself, and faulted the administration for continuing to condemn it.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in a ceremony Friday marking the return of the remains of the four Americans killed, again described that video as "senseless" and "unacceptable." But she also called on leaders in those countries to stop the violence.

"The people of Egypt, Libya, Yemen and Tunisia did not trade the tyranny of a dictator for the tyranny of a mob. Reasonable people and responsible leaders in these countries need to do everything they can to restore security and hold accountable those behind these violent acts," she said.

Meanwhile, The Associated Press reports that federal probation officials are investigating the California filmmaker linked to the video. He had previously been convicted of financial crimes.

Google will not remove anti-Islam film from YouTube following White House request for reviewPublished September 14, 2012FoxNews.com

Google will not remove the YouTube video that has been cited as the spark for demonstrations raging across the Middle East and North Africa, the company announced Friday.

The decision comes following a White House request for the trailer for ‘Innocence of Muslims’ to be reviewed under the company’s policies.

The Obama administration is not explicitly asking YouTube to remove the film, but to check if it meets their standards.

"The White House asked YouTube to review the video to see if it was in compliance with their terms of use," Press Secretary Jay Carney said.

The company determined that the video was within guidelines.

“However, we’ve restricted access to it in countries where it is illegal such as India and Indoesia, as well as in Libya and Egypt given the very sensitive situation sin these two countries,” a spokeswoman said.

There is no war on terror for the Obama White House, but there is one on Fox News.

In a recent interview with The New Republic, President Obama was back to his grousing about the one television news outlet in America that won’t fall in line and treat him as emperor. Discussing breaking Washington's partisan gridlock, the president told TNR,"If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News...for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you’ll see more of them doing it."

Alas, the president loves to whine about the media meanies at Fox News. To him, these are not people trying to do their jobs. No, they are out to get him. What other motive could a journalist have in holding a president accountable? Why oh why do Ed Henry and Chris Wallace insist on asking hard questions? Make them stop!

Alas, the president loves to whine about the media meanies at Fox News. To him, these are not people trying to do their jobs. No, they are out to get him.

The president seems more comfortable talking to "real journalists" such as Chris Hughes, who asked the question in the TNR interview that elicited Obama's reflexive Fox hatred. Hughes is the new owner of TNR and is a former major Obama campaign donor and organizer who was featured on the cover of Fast Company, with the headline, "The Kid Who Made Obama President." You can't make this stuff up.

This latest volley from the president is just one in a long line of comments from his White House as part of their campaign to silence any dissent they detect in the press corps.

Recently, the White House has kept Fox News off of conference calls dealing with the Benghazi attack, despite Fox News being the only outlet that was regularly reporting on it and despite Fox having top notch foreign policy reporters.

They have left Chris Wallace’s "Fox News Sunday" out of a round of interviews that included CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS for not being part of a “legitimate” news network. In October 2009, as part of an Obama administration onslaught against Fox News,White House senior adviser David Axelrod said on ABC’s “This Week” that the Fox News Channel is "not really a news station" and that much of the programming is "not really news."

Whether you are liberal or conservative, libertarian, moderate or politically agnostic, everyone should be concerned when leaders of our government believe they can intentionally try to delegitimize a news organization they don’t like.

In fact, if you are a liberal – as I am – you should be the most offended, as liberalism is founded on the idea of cherishing dissent and an inviolable right to freedom of expression.

That more liberals aren't calling out the White House for this outrageous behavior tells you something about the state of liberalism in America today.

Sure, everyone understands how some of Fox's opinion programming would get under President Obama's skin, the same way MSNBC from 4pm until closing time is not the favorite stop for Republicans. But it's not okay -- or presidential -- to continue smearing an entire network of hard working journalists because you are mad at Sean Hannity.

During the initial launch of the war on Fox News in October 2009, then-White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told the New York Times of Fox News, “[W]e don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.” On CNN, she declared that Fox was a “wing of the Republican Party.” Then: “let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is."

Gosh, this sounds so familiar. In fact, it’s exactly the line that Media Matters used in a 2010 memo to donors: “Fox News is not a news organization. It is the de facto leader of the GOP, and it is long past time that it is treated as such by the media, elected officials and the public.”

In fact, this is the signature line of Media Matters in discussing Fox News, which they say they exist to destroy. Their CEO, David Brock told Politico in 2011 that their strategy was a “war on Fox” that is executed by 90 staff members and a $10 million yearly budget, gratis liberal donors.

Can someone explain to me how it’s “liberal” to try and shut down a media organization? What the Obama administration is doing, and what liberals are funding at MMFA is beyond chilling – it’s a deep freeze.

On the heels of Dunn’s attack on Fox, Brock wrote a letter to progressive organizations bragging about the U.S. government trashing a news organization: “In recent days, a new level of scrutiny has been directed toward Fox News, in no small part due to statements from the White House, and from Media Matters, challenging its standing as a news organization.” Point of order: who put Media Matters in charge of determining what is and isn't a news operation?

A Media Matters memo found its way into the public domain and if you care at all about decency and freedom of the press, it will make you throw up. If you like McCarthyism, it’s right up your alley. It details to liberal donors how they have plans to assemble opposition research on Fox News employees.

It complains of the “pervasive unwillingness among members of the media to officially kick Fox News to the curb of the press club” and outlines how they are going to change that through targeting elite media figures and turning them against Fox. They say they want to set up a legal fund to sue (harass) conservatives for any “slanderous” comments they make about progressives on air. They actually cite one of the best journalists around, Jake Tapper, as a problem because he questioned the White House about calling a news outlet “illegitimate.” Tapper can see the obvious: if the White House can call one news outlet illegitimate for asking tough questions, then guess who is next? Anyone.

We defend freedom of the press because of the principle, not because we like everything the press does. For example, I defend MSNBC’s right to run liberal programming to their hearts content.

Monitoring the media is actually a good thing; the media should be held accountable, including Fox News. When MMFA began I was supportive of their endeavor and even used some of their research. They seemed a counterbalance to conservative media monitoring organizations.

But now the mask is off. They make no bones about their intentions, and it's not a fair media. It is clear now that the idea of freedom of the press actually offends Media Matters. In their memo, they complain about “an expansive view of legal precedent protecting the freedom of the press, and the progressive movement's own commitment to the First Amendment” as an impediment to be overcome or changed. They say they are “consider[ing] pushing prominent progressives to stop appearing on Fox News.” For those who defy the order, they threaten to start daily publishing the names of Democrats who appear in order to shame them. If that doesn’t work, presumably they will just shave our heads and march us down Constitution Avenue.

When Anita Dunn was informing America – as a senior government official – which news organizations were “legitimate,” she conveniently deemed CNN, which rarely challenges the White House, as a “real” network. Presumably she believes MSNBC is “legitimate” also, despite their undisguised disgust of the GOP and hagiography of the president, not to mention more opinion programming than any cable outlet.

I’m going to go out on a limb and assume she thinks CBS is “legitimate” after they just ran what amounted to a 2016 ad for Hillary Clinton on "60 Minutes." CBS is the same place that has a political director who also writes for one of the most liberal outlets in the country, Slate. Who also just wrote in that publication that the president should “pulverize” the GOP. Imagine a political director at CBS hired away from the Weekly Standard who then wrote an article about "pulverizing" Democrats. I know, I lost you at the part where CBS hired a political director from a conservative outlet.

Last week Rolling Stone editor Michael Hastings – who is a liberal and said recently that “most journalists I know are liberal” – discussed his time covering Obama on the campaign trail. Among the things he witnessed was a reporter trying to interview Obama using a sock puppet.

He told MSNBCs Martin Bashir, “That’s the presence of Obama, even on the press corps, even on the people who follow him every day. When they are near him, they lose their mind sometimes. They start behaving in ways, you know, that are juvenile and amateurish and they swoon.”

Hastings admitted that the presence of Obama made him go gooey too. "Did I ask about drones, did I ask about civil liberties? No, I did not.”

I guess this is what the White House and their friends at Media Matters call the “legitimate” media.

While the left lectures Americans about the historic breakthrough made by NBA free agent Jason Collins in announcing his sexuality and calls for well-deserved tolerance, they are on full-out attack against ESPN commentator Chris Broussard for expressing his Christian views. And now ESPN has been forced to apologize.

It all started when Broussard appeared on Outside the Lines to talk about Collins. Appearing with ESPN senior writer LZ Granderson, who is openly gay, Broussard was asked by the host, “How ready is the NBA and the locker rooms for having an openly gay teammate?”

Broussard answered, “The climate in society is very set for this thing to happen …. A lot of people feel like if you come out and say you don’t agree with homosexuality, you are viewed as a bigot, you are viewed as intolerant. So I think the climate is right for somebody to come out and say they are gay. I’ve been texting with players, GMs, coaches, agents throughout the day … and it’s been overwhelmingly supportive of Jason, from former teammates to guys who have played against him.” Broussard acknowledged that a few players said they might be uncomfortable with a gay player in the showers, but that “I don’t think you’ll see somebody come out and be against this, whether because of their true feelings or because of political correctness.”

Later in the conversation, Granderson said, “If we really want to move toward progress and toward full acceptance, we have to have this conversation and this process. Broussard then seconded that motion, and gave an example of that conversation and how it could be productive:

I’d like to second what LZ said. “I’m a Christian. I don’t agree with homosexuality. I think it’s a sin, as I think all sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman is. [ESPN's] L.Z. [Granderson] knows that. He and I have played on basketball teams together for several years. We’ve gone out, had lunch together, we’ve had good conversations, good laughs together. He knows where I stand and I know where he stands. I don’t criticize him, he doesn’t criticize me, and call me a bigot, call me ignorant, call me intolerant.

In talking to some people around the league, there’s a lot Christians in the NBA and just because they disagree with that lifestyle, they don’t want to be called bigoted and intolerant and things like that. That’s what LZ was getting at. Just like I may tolerate someone whose lifestyle I disagree with, he can tolerate my beliefs. He disagrees with my beliefs and my lifestyle but true tolerance and acceptance is being able to handle that as mature adults and not criticize each other and call each other names…

Personally, I don’t believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly premarital sex between heterosexuals, if you’re openly living that type of lifestyle, then the Bible says you know them by their fruits, it says that’s a sin. If you’re openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality, adultery, fornication, premarital sex between heterosexuals, whatever it may be, I believe that’s walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I do not think the Bible would characterize them as a Christian.

This has been the traditional Biblical view for thousands of years. Still, traditionally religious people in the United States, like Broussard, have reached an understanding and tolerance for those with whom they disagree. Mutual tolerance between the traditionally religious and proponents of the morality of homosexuality is what the conversation between Granderson and Broussard was all about. As Granderson said, “Chris and I have had those uncomfortable conversations, the NBA now needs to have those uncomfortable conversations.” Tolerance is the goal. And tolerance requires tolerance on both sides.

But instead of having those uncomfortable conversations, and coming to mutual respect for one another’s positions, the left went after Broussard hammer and tongs. The hashtag #firechrisbroussard quickly skyrocketed on Twitter. The same left that praised Bob Costas to the skies for randomly sounding off on Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher and gun control now decided that Broussard was way out of line. The LA Times ran an online poll asking, “Should Broussard have said what he said on TV?”

Kelly Dwyer of Yahoo! Sports wrote, “The last thing [gay youths] need is to see someone like Chris Broussard, who ESPN (and by extension, the NBA) trusts as both its voice both at games and in-studio, to be referring to them as sinners who are in ‘open rebellion to God.’” Deadspin’s John Koblin said that it was “unclear why [Broussard’s opinion was] necessary or even relevant at this hour.” Variety subtly suggested, “In December, ESPN suspended commentator Rob Parker for questionable comments on the race of NFL quarterback Robert Griffin III, then chose not to renew his contract after it expired at year’s end.”

In response to all this leftist tolerance, ESPN dutifully released a statement apologizing for Broussard’s comments: “We regret that a respectful discussion of personal viewpoints became a distraction from today’s news. ESPN is fully committed to diversity and welcomes Jason Collins’ announcement.” Naturally, Buzzfeed’s Kate Aurthur ripped ESPN anyway for not sufficiently falling into line: “So no apology from Broussard …. ESPN got itself into this ridiculous, impossible situation here by relying on one of its employee's religious beliefs to inform a discussion about the huge Collins news …. What I would like to know, therefore, is why they put Broussard on the air to discuss his personal feelings about Collins, homosexuality, and Christianity, rather than his area of professional expertise — basketball — in the first place.” Aurthur went on a rampage, calling Broussard “punitive, unforgiving,” and lamenting that “Collins’ beautiful announcement” had been tarnished by ESPN’s “outdated, homophobic pit of its own making.”

Broussard’s opinion was verboten according to the left. Granderson’s was not. The right was happy to air both opinions. Yet the left thinks that Broussard was way out of bounds. That’s because the goal of the left in overplaying the Jason Collins coming out party – a presidential call? Really? – is to portray those who disagree on homosexuality as bigots and homophobes who want to deny people like Collins happiness. Broussard never even remotely suggested that Collins should not have come out. He repeatedly stated that the time was ripe for Collins to come out. Virtually everyone on the right agrees with that general perspective. But Broussard violated the most taboo of all standards: he suggested that he had a different moral view than that of the left. And so now his job may be in jeopardy.

When it comes to tyranny and tolerance, the case of Chris Broussard is far more telling than that of Jason Collins. It is the left that wants tyranny of expression. Tolerance only extends to those deemed worthy by the left.

A prominent pastor was allegedly disinvited from speaking at Morehouse College’s baccalaureate service this week after he criticized President Barack Obama, who will deliver the school’s commencement address.

The Rev. Kevin Johnson, a Morehouse alumnus and the senior pastor of Bright Hope Baptist Church in North Philadelphia, Pa., wrote an opinion column earlier this month in the Philadelphia Tribune accusing Obama of neglecting the black community in his cabinet picks–they’re overwhelmingly white–and broader political agenda

A prominent pastor was allegedly disinvited from speaking at Morehouse College’s baccalaureate service this week after he criticized President Barack Obama, who will deliver the school’s commencement address.

The Rev. Kevin Johnson, a Morehouse alumnus and the senior pastor of Bright Hope Baptist Church in North Philadelphia, Pa., wrote an opinion column earlier this month in the Philadelphia Tribune accusing Obama of neglecting the black community in his cabinet picks–they’re overwhelmingly white–and broader political agenda

(Excerpt) Read more at georgiatipsheet.com ...

Not surprised. The only opinions many liberals tolerate are the ones they agree with.

Not surprised. The only opinions many liberals tolerate are the ones they agree with.

I'm once again not at all surprised that right wingers and fundies think they should never be criticized for anything they say or that others should not be free to react to what they say with condemnation and rejection

how about everyone just whatever they want (freedom of speech) and stop pissing and moaning if others object to their statements and even choose to un-invite them to share more of their thoughts.

BTW - v. Johnson was told that he would be one of three baccalaureate service speakers, and he refused so once again we've got someone pissing and moaning over nothing

A this rate, calling homosexuality a "sin" will be a crime one day. I understand that only matters to Christians, but this kind of censorship is troubling.

Gospel Singer McClurkin Cut From MLK Event Over Gay Rights

Donnie McClurkinGospel musician Donnie McClurkin claims he was uninvited to a concert in Washington, D.C. celebrating Martin Luther King Jr. and the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington due to his stance on homosexuality. McClurkin has said that God delivered him from what he reportedly called “the curse” of homosexuality after he was sexually abused as a child. In a video posted online, the musician said Washington, D.C., Mayor Vincent C. Gray’s office asked him not to attend the concert where he was considered a headliner. “Last night, on the way to the airport, we received a telephone call from the promoters who had received word from the Mayor’s office –Mayor Gray’s office– as well as the arts commission that I was not welcomed and uninvited the night before the concert,” McClurkin said. “[It’s] quite unfortunate that in today a black man, a black artist is uninvited from a civil rights movement depicting the love, the unity, the peace, the tolerance.” McClurkin went on to say “These are bully tactics simply because of stances that I took never, ever demeaning, never, ever derogatorily addressing any, any lifestyle.” Representatives for Mayor Gray’s office did not immediately return a request for comment. You can watch the full video here.

If he wants a job he better keep his faith-based opinions to himself. What is happening to my country?

Craig James fired by Fox Sports for saying homosexuality is a ‘choice’ to be judged by God By Cheryl K. ChumleyThe Washington TimesMonday, September 9, 2013

A Fox Sports college football analyst was fired after just one week once video footage surfaced of him in 2012 speaking of gays having to face God for their sexual choices.

Craig James, a former NFL player who unsuccessfully ran last year for a Senate seat in Texas, said during a campaign debate that gays would “have to answer to the Lord for their actions,” the Daily Mail reported. He also said, to applause, that being gay “is a choice” and those who “choose to do that” face accountability from God.

He made the comments about gays in context of explaining how “God’s going to judge each one of us in this room for our actions,” the Mail reported.

He added: “We should not give benefits to those civil unions. They should not occur. We have to stay strong on this, this is important, man. … We have a fiscal issue in this country. … We also have a moral issue in this country.”

Fox executives fired him and said he “will not be making any further appearances on Fox Sports Southwest’s football coverage this season,” a network spokesperson told Sports Illustrated.

Another Fox spokesman told the Dallas Morning News, “We just asked ourselves how Craig’s statements would play in our human resources department. He couldn’t say those things here.”

Mr. James was formerly an analyst for ESPN, but took a hiatus to run for Senate. He was hired by Fox Sports a month ago.

At the time of Mr. James‘ hiring, Fox Sports Southwest executive producer Mike Anastassiou called him a “talented broadcaster who I’ve admired throughout his career. His knowledge of college football and the experience he brings as an analyst will be a tremendous asset to our coverage.”

If he wants a job he better keep his faith-based opinions to himself. What is happening to my country?

Craig James fired by Fox Sports for saying homosexuality is a ‘choice’ to be judged by God By Cheryl K. ChumleyThe Washington TimesMonday, September 9, 2013

A Fox Sports college football analyst was fired after just one week once video footage surfaced of him in 2012 speaking of gays having to face God for their sexual choices.

Craig James, a former NFL player who unsuccessfully ran last year for a Senate seat in Texas, said during a campaign debate that gays would “have to answer to the Lord for their actions,” the Daily Mail reported. He also said, to applause, that being gay “is a choice” and those who “choose to do that” face accountability from God.

He made the comments about gays in context of explaining how “God’s going to judge each one of us in this room for our actions,” the Mail reported.

He added: “We should not give benefits to those civil unions. They should not occur. We have to stay strong on this, this is important, man. … We have a fiscal issue in this country. … We also have a moral issue in this country.”

Fox executives fired him and said he “will not be making any further appearances on Fox Sports Southwest’s football coverage this season,” a network spokesperson told Sports Illustrated.

Another Fox spokesman told the Dallas Morning News, “We just asked ourselves how Craig’s statements would play in our human resources department. He couldn’t say those things here.”

Mr. James was formerly an analyst for ESPN, but took a hiatus to run for Senate. He was hired by Fox Sports a month ago.

At the time of Mr. James‘ hiring, Fox Sports Southwest executive producer Mike Anastassiou called him a “talented broadcaster who I’ve admired throughout his career. His knowledge of college football and the experience he brings as an analyst will be a tremendous asset to our coverage.”

If he wants a job he better keep his faith-based opinions to himself. What is happening to my country?

Craig James fired by Fox Sports for saying homosexuality is a ‘choice’ to be judged by God By Cheryl K. ChumleyThe Washington TimesMonday, September 9, 2013

A Fox Sports college football analyst was fired after just one week once video footage surfaced of him in 2012 speaking of gays having to face God for their sexual choices.

Craig James, a former NFL player who unsuccessfully ran last year for a Senate seat in Texas, said during a campaign debate that gays would “have to answer to the Lord for their actions,” the Daily Mail reported. He also said, to applause, that being gay “is a choice” and those who “choose to do that” face accountability from God.

He made the comments about gays in context of explaining how “God’s going to judge each one of us in this room for our actions,” the Mail reported.

He added: “We should not give benefits to those civil unions. They should not occur. We have to stay strong on this, this is important, man. … We have a fiscal issue in this country. … We also have a moral issue in this country.”

Fox executives fired him and said he “will not be making any further appearances on Fox Sports Southwest’s football coverage this season,” a network spokesperson told Sports Illustrated.

Another Fox spokesman told the Dallas Morning News, “We just asked ourselves how Craig’s statements would play in our human resources department. He couldn’t say those things here.”

Mr. James was formerly an analyst for ESPN, but took a hiatus to run for Senate. He was hired by Fox Sports a month ago.

At the time of Mr. James‘ hiring, Fox Sports Southwest executive producer Mike Anastassiou called him a “talented broadcaster who I’ve admired throughout his career. His knowledge of college football and the experience he brings as an analyst will be a tremendous asset to our coverage.”